Hello :) I bookmarked this blog. Thanks heaps for this!… if anyone else has anything, it would be much appreciated. Great website HOT Pianoforte Links http://www.de.Grand-Pianos.org Enjoy!…

Your “question” has been answered in detail many times before. That you are unaware of the answer tells me that you’re either incompetent, or lazy. Next time try googling. I typed a question into google just to ensure that my answer to you was phrased properly, and the very first result proved to be quite informative.

c6gunner on August 10, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Sorry, your example of the lottery isn’t going to hold water. Since we are talking about evolving a chromosome by organisms that reproduce sexually if would be much more fair to compare this to a man and his wife both winning the lottery at different times by playing the exact same number both times. While you are almost guaranteed a winner every week, after one person wins you then have to have the spouse also win, and since the new chromosomes have to match up, they need to be playing the same numbers. Additionally to explain the variation on the number of chromosomes the same scenario would have to be repeated a number of different times.

C6 Gunner… you mean the C6 Medium Machine Gun that replaced the M-60?

We use it in Canadian Forces and have for years (I’m no longer in). That’s a wicked Gun and a joy to operate. In a training setting at least.

Hope you put it to good use.

And how is that? Do you have anything substantial to back this statement up, or are you just so secure in your superior knowledge that you feel no further explanation is needed? Or did you perhaps leave off the “/sarcasm” you meant to include at the end of this statement?

Buford on August 10, 2007 at 11:27 AM

You’re talking about the likelihood of something occurring without really grasping the number of recursions involved. You’re also assuming that the observed effect is the intended effect, which is simply….well, dumb.

Look at it this way: the odds of you winning the lottery are astronomically low. Therefore, according to your logic, nobody could ever win the lottery. But if you were to make that conclusion, you would do so based on a faulty interpretation of statistics, and ignorance of how a lottery operates. In fact, people win the lottery all the time. That’s because the odds of any particular person winning are very low, while the odds of SOMEONE winning are pretty much 1:1.

Ditto for evolution. You look at one evolved trait and say “well, the odds of this occurring by accident are ten trillion to one!”. What you’re not taking into account is that:

1) The only reason you’re commenting on that particular trait is because it already exists. If it had never evolved, you wouldn’t be aware of it. Instead you’d be commenting on whatever other trait evolved instead.

2) You’re talking about an event which had millions of years to occur, in a population of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of beings. Just at random, let’s assume 200,000 individuals, each living for 30 years, over a 1 million year period. That comes out to more than 6 trillion recursions, or 6 trillion chances for evolution to make a change. That’s plenty of opportunity for a LOT of changes to occur.

So, in conclusion, no, I did not forget to include a “/sarcasm” tag, I simply didn’t have the time to explain things to you in detail as I was on my lunch break and had to return to work shortly. I hope this has clarified things for you.

The only thing I’ll add, which no one will read because the front page has moved on to other things.

There are some of us who reread most of the posts to see if any interesting comments have been added.

Reread the posts — now I have to move on to other things!

Good day all… and God bless.

The “97-99 percent similar DNA” argument would indeed be relevant and applicable here if a human person was defined solely in terms of matter (”matter being reducible to biology or energy or physics or whatever Richard Carrier at Internet Infidels says) alone.
ColtsFan on August 10, 2007 at 10:44 AM

I swear, you are a man (or woman, cant tell by type) after my own heart!

Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 11:14 AM

Ha!!! Hehe.

Answer: Man, who also happens to be a die-hard, unrepentant Colts Fan.

That said, though, I have to say that I read all of the comments, and I think that this is probably the best creation-evolution thread I have seen at Hot Air. For the most part very respectful. I especially appreciated posts by Weight of Glory, ColtsFan, and Christoph.

Nailinmyeye,

Thank you very much for your kind comments above.

The only thing I’ll add, which no one will read because the front page has moved on to other things, is that the original quote is disingenuous.

I usually re-check previous comments.

It is paradigmatic of the arrogance that I perceive from scientific rationalism, assuming that either it has all of the answers, or is in the process of refining – all the while religion is made up and never self-checking. This is simply incorrect.

This is very true. There is a book that even documents this. I am at work, and so I cannot post comments now.

Theological studies are in a constant process of refinement, or, if you will, reformation. It is what theological students do. In fact, my doctoral studies center upon a re-evaluation of theological categories. Theology is in a constant state of evaluation and reforming. Just because this is not always apparent in “popular evangelicalism,” does not mean that it is not the case.
nailinmyeye on August 10, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Very good summary. In the future, I would like to open up a thread at Lion of Judah-Journal on an article written by John Warwick Montgomery entitled, “The Theologian’s Craft.”

It is very thought-provoking, and similar in content to what you have just written.

Again, thanks, everybody, for your excellent comments above.

Weight of Glory on August 10, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Thanks. I’m usually late to the party.

Theology is in a constant state of evaluation and reforming. Just because this is not always apparent in “popular evangelicalism,” does not mean that it is not the case.

nailinmyeye on August 10, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Yes! exactly! I’m still here, and given your first comment, I also wish that you had been in on this from the outset.

Kowboy on August 10, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Thanks for the vote of confidence!

I do see that there are a few people still here.

The only thing I’ll add, which no one will read because the front page has moved on to other things

nailinmyeye on August 10, 2007 at 11:52 AM

There are some of us who reread most of the posts to see if any interesting comments have been added.

A very well stated comment. Gives me something new to think about. Thank you.

That said, though, I have to say that I read all of the comments, and I think that this is probably the best creation-evolution thread I have seen at Hot Air. For the most part very respectful. I especially appreciated posts by Weight of Glory, ColtsFan, and Christoph.

The only thing I’ll add, which no one will read because the front page has moved on to other things, is that the original quote is disingenuous. It is paradigmatic of the arrogance that I perceive from scientific rationalism, assuming that either it has all of the answers, or is in the process of refining – all the while religion is made up and never self-checking. This is simply incorrect. Theological studies are in a constant process of refinement, or, if you will, reformation. It is what theological students do. In fact, my doctoral studies center upon a re-evaluation of theological categories. Theology is in a constant state of evaluation and reforming. Just because this is not always apparent in “popular evangelicalism,” does not mean that it is not the case.

Then, God really got cracking and worked on fundamental physical particles, balancing all of the forces, and creating 15-billion years of “Universe” evolution history and proof to REALLY mess with humans’ minds.

Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 5:14 AM

I’ve always believed He has a sense of humor.

Buford:

“Take a moment and consider the odds of this happening by chance.”

That right there clearly demonstrates that you don’t really understand evolution.

c6gunner on August 10, 2007 at 7:32 AM

And how is that? Do you have anything substantial to back this statement up, or are you just so secure in your superior knowledge that you feel no further explanation is needed? Or did you perhaps leave off the “/sarcasm” you meant to include at the end of this statement?

One, their are theories to explain that.

Interesting article, and while it demonstrates that organisms with variations in individual chromosomes can reproduce, it offers no evidence whatsoever of how organisms could evolve an additional chromosome. In fact that has not ever been actually been observed.

Two, your is an argument from ignorance — not knowing everything (yourself or the science itself) does not invalidate it. We all have more to learn.

We don’t have to know everything in order to recognize that for the evolution of additional chromosomes to happen something radically different than what has been observed happening during normal sexual reproduction has to have happened multiple times. Anytime a theory makes assumptions that something quite extraordinary had to have happened at some point, and no explanation as to what or how this occurred, and in fact that particular event would need to violate everything we have observed to be true about how things normally occur, it is time to realize that the person putting forth the theory has now stepped into the realm of “we have no real clue of what actually happened.” Currently evolution is presented to the public as “The Truth” by a large number of people, and yet it definitely has areas where no known scientific explanation exists for what would have needed to have happened for it to actually be the truth. It would be nice if people presenting the Theory of Evolution recognized that it is indeed a theory and not established fact.

Three, do you think it’s more likely than, God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light and he saw it was good? Then, God really got cracking and worked on fundamental physical particles, balancing all of the forces, and creating 15-billion years of “Universe” evolution history and proof to REALLY mess with humans’ minds.

Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 5:14 AM

It doesn’t really matter what I believe when arguing about problems with the Theory of Evolution. The problems do exist, and while science might figure out what actually happened on day the current theory is seriously flawed. The real problem is that the scientific community has no other scientific explanation for the huge variety of life we know of, so no real discussion on the correctness of the Theory of Evolution is welcome, as the discarding of the Theory of Evolution leaves scientists with no explanation at all. I personally have no problem with saying, “well we just don’t know about that,” and accepting that while the Theory of Evolution is one possibility, it is also flawed, and that acceptance of it being “The Truth” requires an enormous amount of faith or an enormous amount of ignorance as to the ramifications of what actually had to have happened on a cellular and molecular level for it to be “The Truth.”

The “97-99 percent similar DNA” argument would indeed be relevant and applicable here if a human person was defined solely in terms of matter (”matter being reducible to biology or energy or physics or whatever Richard Carrier at Internet Infidels says) alone.

I swear, you are a man (or woman, cant tell by type) after my own heart!

The point is that the Bible says one day. The terminology used by those who penned this definition is very specifically a 24 your period.

Lawrence on August 10, 2007 at 9:49 AM

And who wrote the Bible? And where does it specifically say that it was a 24 hour period? You give credence to my point with this statement. I’m not saying you’re wrong. None of us truly know the Bible. But it was written by men in the terms they understood.

I believe God can do whatever He wants. There are no limits. The only limits there are are the ones man has tried to put on Him to better understand Him. Biblical interpretation is the reason there are various religions. Different people interpret the Bible differently.

For instance, I really enjoy the arguments over what race Jesus was. Jesus was a divine being. The Son of God. Who is to say that he couldn’t appear olive skinned to an Arabic person, Black to a black person or white to a white person. He could turn water to wine, feed the multitudes with a few loaves of bread, and cure the sick. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to say he could make himself appear different to different people.

Human beings — many of us believe our intellect and reason put us head and shoulders above the rest of the animal kingdom.

However, do people too often exaggerate their distinctiveness? Especially when we compare ourselves to our closest evolutionary kin — the great apes. They are primates like chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, which according to recent genetic studies, share between 97 and 99 percent of their DNA with human beings.

kiakjones on August 10, 2007 at 8:53 AM

The “97-99 percent similar DNA” argument would indeed be relevant and applicable here if a human person was defined solely in terms of matter (“matter being reducible to biology or energy or physics or whatever Richard Carrier at Internet Infidels says) alone.

That is, if the ontological constitution of a human person is defined as materialistic in nature (thus denying the immaterial soul), then the comments of kiakjones would be “right on and accurate.”

I humbly submit that the human ontological constitution (that is, “what makes up a human person?”) is defined as both body (matter) and soul (immaterial part). The immaterial part, the soul, provides rationality which makes human persons different in kind from all other animals.

This dualistic philosophy of a human person, not only defeats the “97-99 percent similar DNA’ argument, but also, I respectfully believe, provides life-giving answers to pressing questions in bioetics and issues involving human dignity.

Speaking as a Christian evangelical creationist, I think it takes more faith to believe the evolution theory than it does to believe “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.”

Now, how do we know evolution wasn’t God’s plan all along?

Kowboy on August 10, 2007 at 9:18 AM

The answer is reflected in how you argue the point. The issue is that God did create in His own terms, not in mans.

What you are doing is exactly what you are arguing against, trying to define God’s terms in your understanding. The point is that the Bible says one day. The terminology used by those who penned this definition is very specifically a 24 your period.

The first thing God created was day and night. The sun to rule the day and stars to rule the night… not coincidentally, this is how we humans measure time. Since God created time (what we humans define as time) then it would be no problem for God to create the rest of the universe in 6 days.

There are no contradictions within the Biblical account of what happened. The contradictions are between our human desires to prove the Bible wrong in spite of God’s omnipotent ability to do things we can’t as humans fully understand.

The basic premise seems to be that because Homo habilis and Homo erectus co-existed, this somehow proves that one could not have originated from the other.

c6gunner on August 9, 2007 at 11:04 PM

Your point is that this really doesn’t prove anything.

Furthermore, the bible doesn’t talk about a Homo habilis and a Homo erectus. So to say that this so-called science proves anything with regard to the Bible requires a huge jump in logic. The Bible story isn’t wrong just because it doesn’t address every scientific point of debate.

As far as proving that one humanoid is related to another, he doesn’t do that either. What he offers is at best an observed coincidence, but absolutely no proof of any cause and effect relating the two.

The real point is for us to understanding that observed coincidence doesn’t necessarily prove anything.

Now, how do we know evolution wasn’t God’s plan all along? And don’t say anything about God telling someone to work for 6 days then rest on the 7th. When God talked to man, he did so in man’s terms so he would be understood. So God could have conceivably taken millions or even billions of years in man’s terms to create the earth and everything on it. But the Bible states God took 6 days. That would be 6 GOD days, not man days.